JUDGMENT : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sishir Dutta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1-4, Mr. S. Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 and 6 and Ms. A. Biyani, learned counsel for the respondent No.7. 2. In this appeal, under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, the appellant Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has challenged the judgment and award dated 10.01.2014 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT)/Additional District Judge No.2, Sonitpur (learned Tribunal, for short), in MAC Case No.355/2010. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and award dated 10.01.2014, the learned Tribunal has directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.21,49,955/- with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 15.11.2010, till payment to the respondent No.1/claimant. 3. The backgrounds fact, leading to filing of the present appeal is briefly stated as under:- “On 25.08.2010, Md. Hamid Ali was proceeding on a motorcycle, bearing Registration No.AS-12F-4860 from 18 th Mile towards Balipara on NH-52 as pillion rider and when the said motorcycle reached at 17 th Mile, the vehicle No.AS-07B- 5591, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle. As a result, Hamid Ali sustained grievous injuries and succumb to the injuries. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 in this appeal and opposite party Nos.1 and 2 in the MAC Case No.355/2010 appeared before the Tribunal, filed their written statement denying the negligence on the part of the driver/opposite party No.2 and taken a stand that the vehicle was insured with the opposite party No.3 i.e. the present appellant, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and the liability, if any, has to be borne by the said opposite party. The appellant herein being the opposite party No.3 in the MAC case, filed written statement and contested the case and denied the statement and averment made in the claim petition and also taken a stand that the amount of compensation claimed by the claimant is very exaggerated and speculative and the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured till it is proved that the driver of the vehicle had a valid driving licence and the condition of insurance policy was not violated by the insured. Upon the aforementioned pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed following issues:- 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation as prayed for? Thereafter, considering the evidence of the claimant and also the Exhibits-1 to 7, the learned Tribunal has directed the appellant to pay the respondent No.1/claimant a sum of Rs.21,49,955/- being the compensation.” 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal mainly on the ground that the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier which ought to have been applied considering the age of the mother of the deceased and that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head love and affection, which is in higher side and the multiplier applied ought to have been 13 instead of 17 and under such circumstances, it is contended to allow this appeal. 5. Mr. Dutta, learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that while determining the loss of dependency, the learned Tribunal had failed to take into account that the deceased was a bachelor and as such, 50% of his income ought to have been deducted as personal expenses, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Panna Lal v. National Insurance Company Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 5547/2025 decided on 25.04.2025 and also in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. , (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 5.1 Mr. Dutta, further submits that the claimants have not filed any cross objection in the appeal filed by the insurance company and as such, he cannot agitate against the issue and in support of his submission, he has referred to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Banarsi & Ors. v. Ram Phal , (2003) 9 SCC 606 and further, Mr. Dutta has pointed out that the parents are entitled to filial consortium in case of accidental death of their child and as such, the mother is entitled to filial consortium on the death of the child and in support of his submission, he has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. , (2018) 18 SCC 130 and also the decision of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. , (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Further, Mr. Dutta submits that the future prospect should not carry any interest. 5.2 Mr. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, also submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded interest upon the entire amount of compensation including the „future prospect? which is illegal and arbitrary. Under the facts and circumstances discussed above, Mr. Dutta has contended to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1- 4/claimants submits that the established guidelines for deduction in cases, where deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are parents, as outlined in paragraph No.32, in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) , a 50% deduction for personal and living expenses is generally applied, assuming a bachelor spends more on themselves and may marry soon, reducing contributions to family and a father is typically not considered as dependent due to likely independent income. The mother and siblings are also generally not considered dependents unless proven otherwise and therefore, if only a mother is considered dependent, 50% is deducted for personal expenses and the remaining 50% is considered to be the contribution to the family and if the bachelor supported a large dependent family i.e. widowed mother and several non-earning younger siblings, personal expenses may be reduced to one-third, making two-third the contribution to the family. 6.1 Mr. Bhattacharjee further pointed out that the multiplier applicable herein will be 18 since at the time of death the deceased was 23 years old in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarala Verma (supra) and on such count, according to Mr. Bhattacharjee, the learned Tribunal herein this case had wrongly applied the multiplier 17. 6.2. Mr. Bhattacharyee also submits that while the learned Tribunal has awarded interest @7.5% per annum, the same ought to have been 9% per annum in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Remtling Hmar & Ors. vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Gau 1587 and under such circumstances, Mr. Bhattacharjee has contended to assess just compensation and to award interest as prayed for. 7. vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Gau 1587 and under such circumstances, Mr. Bhattacharjee has contended to assess just compensation and to award interest as prayed for. 7. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the memo of appeal and the grounds mentioned therein and also perused the impugned judgment and award dated 10.01.2014. 8. It appears that while assessing the compensation, which the claimants are entitled to, the learned Tribunal has held that the No.1 son of the claimant No.1 died in the accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the Mahindra Renault vehicle bearing registration No.AS-07B-5591 and the vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and thereafter, based on Exhibit-4, the post mortem report, the learned Tribunal has assessed the age of the victim at 23 years for being the date of birth recorded in PAN card (Exhibit-6) as 12.03.1988 and on the date of accident he was 23 years old and therefore, the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier 17. The Tribunal has also held that the deceased was self-employed carrying on the business of supply and contract and Exhibit-7 is the income tax return filed in respect of the deceased for the year 2010-11 and his annual income shown in Exhibit-7 at Rs.1,58,880/- and taken the income stated in the Exhibit-7, the learned Tribunal has proceeded to assess the compensation the claimants are entitled to. The learned Tribunal thereafter, added 50% of the actual income as future prospect as the deceased was below 40 years of age and being the bachelor the learned Tribunal had deducted 50% of the amount towards the personal expenses and thereby figured out the loss of dependency at Rs.1,19,115/- and besides the loss of dependency, the learned Tribunal has awarded funeral expenses, loss of love and affection and also awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- being the loss of consortium, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors. , MANU/SC/0480/2013 and thereafter, arrived at the finding that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.21,49,955/-. 9. I have carefully gone through the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) , Sarla Verma (supra) and Rajesh (supra) . v. Rajbir Singh & Ors. , MANU/SC/0480/2013 and thereafter, arrived at the finding that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.21,49,955/-. 9. I have carefully gone through the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) , Sarla Verma (supra) and Rajesh (supra) . Indisputably, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh (supra) has been overruled in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) , by a Five-Judges Constitutional Bench and as such, the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- being the loss of consortium awarded by the Tribunal is illegal and arbitrary. 10. And based on the proposition of law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra) , this Court is inclined to assess the compensation, which the claimants are entitled to in the following para of this judgment. 11. The learned Tribunal had assessed the age of the victim as 23 years for being the date of birth recorded in PAN card (Exhibit-6) as 12.03.1988. The age of the deceased, as assessed by the learned Tribunal is not disputed by the appellant. Having assessed the age of the deceased as 23 years, the learned Tribunal had applied the multiplier 17. However, the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of the multiplier, appears to be against the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra). As per said decision, since the age of the deceased was in between 21-25 years, the multiplier applicable would be 18 not 17. The learned Tribunal had misread the dictum of Sarala Verma (supra). 11.1. Indisputably, the deceased was self employed. His avocation was business of supply and contractor. The claimant exhibited Income Tax Return of the deceased as Exhibit-7, in respect of the financial year 2010- 2011, dated 19.07.2010, which indicates the income of the deceased as Rs.1,58,880/. Then his income per month would be Rs.13,240/ Thus, having accepted the income of the deceased at Rs.13,240/ per month, 40% of the same has to be added as future prospect, as at the time of accident the deceased was below 40 years, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) in para 59.4 . The learned Tribunal, however, added 50% as future prospect, which seems to erroneous on the face of the aforesaid decision, and the same is applicable in case of persons having permanent job. After addition of 40% to Rs.13,240/ the amount would be Rs. 18,536/- ( Rs.13,240/ + Rs.5296 = Rs.18,536/-) 11.2. Thereafter, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (para No. 31) in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) , 50% of the aforesaid amount has to be deducted as personal expenses since he was bachelor at the time of accident. But, in para No. 32 in the said case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non- earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third. 11.3. In the instant case , t he deceased left behind his mother and one sister and two brothers. Though Mr. Bhattacharjee submits that in the instant case the deduction would be only one third, yet to apply the proposition of para No. 32 in the case of Sarala verma (supra), there should be large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers. Since in the instant case, the deceased left behind only one sister and two brothers, the same, to the considered opinion of this Court would not attract the proposition laid down in para No. 32 in the case of Sarala Verma (supra). On such count, this Court is unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Bhattacharjee. 11.4. The learned Tribunal had deducted 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses, which is in consistent with the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No. 31 of the case of Sarla Verma(supra). After deduction of 50% of the above, the amount would be Rs. 9268/- [Rs.18,536/ – Rs.9268 = Rs.9268/]. Bhattacharjee. 11.4. The learned Tribunal had deducted 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses, which is in consistent with the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No. 31 of the case of Sarla Verma(supra). After deduction of 50% of the above, the amount would be Rs. 9268/- [Rs.18,536/ – Rs.9268 = Rs.9268/]. After application of multiplier, the amount would be Rs.20,01,888/- (Rs.9268/ x 12 x 18 = Rs.20,01,888/-). 11.5. Besides, under the conventional heads, a sum of Rs. 40,000/ each with 10% increase in every three years has to be awarded under the head - consortium, and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- under head - funeral expenses, and the aforesaid amounts should be enhanced by 10% in every 3 years, and a sum of Rs. 15,000 /- under head - loss of estate , and the aforesaid amounts should be enhanced by 10% in every 3 years in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (Para 59.8) in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). It is to be noted here that after the accident almost 15 years elapsed. That being so, the aforesaid amounts have to be enhanced by five times. 11.6. Though Mr. Dutta, learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that 10% enhancement of the conventional amount should be enhanced in every three years from the delivery of judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra) , but the said submission left this Court unimpressed in as much as nothing has been indicated in the said judgment as to from which date the judgment will be applicable. In that view of the matter and also in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanisk Sinha & Another vs. State of West Bengal & Another, Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 8609-8614 of 2024 , the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court always have the retrospective effect unless indicated in the judgment itself. The same has been clarified in the following terms:- “Now the law of prospective and retrospective operation is absolutely clear. Whereas a law made by the legislature is always prospective in nature unless it has been specifically stated in the statute itself about its retrospective operation, the reverse is true for the law which is laid down by a Constitutional Court, or law as it is interpreted by the Court. Whereas a law made by the legislature is always prospective in nature unless it has been specifically stated in the statute itself about its retrospective operation, the reverse is true for the law which is laid down by a Constitutional Court, or law as it is interpreted by the Court. The judgment of the Court will always be retrospective in nature unless the judgment itself specifically states that the judgment will operate prospectively. The prospective operation of a judgment is normally done to avoid any unnecessary burden to persons or to avoid undue hardships to those who had bona- fidely done something with the understanding of the law as it existed at the relevant point of time. Further, it is done not to unsettle something which has long been settled, as that would cause injustice to many. 11.7. Since there is no indication in the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) , as to from which date it will come into force, this Court is inclined to apply the same with retrospective effect, i.e. from the date of accident. 11.8. The whole calculation, after application of the principle laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) and also in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) , would be as under:- S. No. Heads Calculation I Monthly income Rs.13,240 II 40% of (i) to be added as future prospect= (Rs.13,240/ + Rs.5296 = Rs.18,536/). Rs.18,536/- III 50% of the (ii) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased = Rs.18,536/ Rs.9268 = – Rs.9268/]. Rs. 9268/- IV Compensation after multiplier of 18 is applied = (Rs.9268/ x 12 x 18 = Rs. Rs.20,01,888/- Rs.20,01,888/ V Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- which has to be increased by 10% in every three years (15,000 x 10/100) = 1500 x 5 = Rs.7500/- Rs.15,000/-+ Rs.7,500/-= Rs.22,500/- VI Loss of Consortium =Rs.40,000/-, which has to be increased by 10% in each three years 40,000 x 10/100 = 4000 x 5 = 20,000. (Rs.40,000 + 20,000 = Rs.60,000/- Rs.40,000/-+ Rs.12000/-= Rs. 60,000/- VII Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-, which has to be increased by 10% in each three years 15,000 x 10/100 = 1500 x 5 =Rs.7500/- Rs.15,000/-+ Rs.7,500/-= Rs.22,500/- Total compensation awarded Total compensation awarded 12. (Rs.40,000 + 20,000 = Rs.60,000/- Rs.40,000/-+ Rs.12000/-= Rs. 60,000/- VII Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-, which has to be increased by 10% in each three years 15,000 x 10/100 = 1500 x 5 =Rs.7500/- Rs.15,000/-+ Rs.7,500/-= Rs.22,500/- Total compensation awarded Total compensation awarded 12. As discussed herein above, at the relevant time, the offending vehicle, i.e. Mahindra Renault, bearing Registration No. AS-07B-5591, vehicle was insured with the appellant i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, and on the relevant date of accident, the policy was in force. This is an undisputed fact. It also appears that at the relevant time, the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence, bearing No. DL No./3154/NLP/90. 13. From various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is now well established that the Court has to assess the just compensation, which the claimants are entitled to in Motor Accident Claims cases. Reference in this context can be made to decision of a three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh , (2003) 2 SCC 274 , wherein it has been held that under the provisions of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, (hereinafter referred to as “the MV Act”) there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal/Court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. The only embargo is — it should be “just” compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This would be clear by reference to the relevant provisions of the MV Act. 13.1. A logical corollary (of above proposition) would be that notwithstanding presence or absence of any cross-objection by the respondent No.1 herein, the Tribunal/Court can award compensation, which according to it is just compensation. In that view of the matter, the submission of Mr. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, who submits that the respondents having not been filed any cross- objection, they cannot agitate against the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal, failed to command an acceptance of this Court, as there is no restriction, under the MV Act. Finding: 14. In the result, this Court finds no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Finding: 14. In the result, this Court finds no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, the impugned Judgment and Award, dated 10.01.2014, stands modified to the extent indicated above. 15. The appellant herein, i.e. the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, is directed to pay the sum of Rs. 21,34,692/- (Rupees Twenty One lacs Thirty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Two ) only, being the compensation, which according to this Court is just compensation, here in this case. The amount, if already paid to the claimant has to be deducted from the aforesaid amount. 16. It is further provided that the entire amount, including the future prospect, shall carry interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e. 15.11.2010, till realization of the amount, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association and Others , (2011) 14 SCC 481 . In the said case, it has been held that the interest upon the compensation amount @ 9% per annum, would be justified. Same principle was followed in the case of Kalpanaraj vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation , (2014) C.R. 693 (SC). 16.1. Though Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal had erred in awarding interest upon the future prospect, yet, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Niru @ Niharika & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11340/2020 dated July 14, 2025, this Court is unable to agree with his submission. 17. The appellant shall deposit the aforesaid amount before the learned Tribunal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment and award. The respondent No.1 herein shall obtain a certified copy of this judgment and order and place the same before the appellant within a period of one week from today. 18. In terms of above, this MAC Appeal stands disposed of. The Registry shall send down the record of the learned Tribunal with a copy of this judgment and order forthwith. The parties have to bear their own cost.